Thursday, November 20, 2008

Happy Romans 9 Day!

OK, the quiz in Romans class today was chapter 9, but in reading through we're at the end of chapter 8. So a predestination Spiel was in order. I'm not sure how helpful what came out of my mouth was, but it went something like this, this time.

Paul uses predestination and election language to be sure. Its most concentrated form is in Romans 9. Ephesians 1 is also a hot spot, whether Paul himself or an encapsulator of Paul for a next generation. So we Arminians have to acknowledge that. Maybe Wesley was right--God foreknew who would respond and predestined those to be saved. But even if he was wrong, Wesleyans believe in predestination in some way. The question is how it works, not whether we believe in it.

OK, like the briefly showing McDLT McDonalds flew in the late 80's, the important thing is to keep the hot part hot and the cold part cold. Paul uses predestination language, yes. What does it do? It affirms God's authority and sovereignty. It affirms God's control over and direction of the world. It affirms believers and God's love for them.

What doesn't it do? It stands in no causal relationship with unbelievers. It does not connect to how we live. For example, it has no impact on how believers are to conduct their mission, as in those who told William Carey in the 1700's that he was foolish to go to India since those people would have been born in Europe if they were elect. It has no impact on how believers are to live, as if we can live an intentionally sinful lifestyle after we are initially justified.

In short, we have to live and act like Arminians, all of us, regardless of what we might believe about predestination. If we logically connect the one to the other, we seem to skew one or the other. Paul talks as if you can be justified and then not be saved in the end. Paul seems to think God wants to see everyone saved. These things don't fit easily on a logical level with what Paul says elsewhere about predestination and election.

Perhaps they can be resolved using God math, but I never took that course in college. They couldn't find a teacher. So we keep the hot part hot and the cold part cold. We live, act, and think like Arminians, because this approach best fits the overall flavor, teaching, and (human) logical underpinning of the New Testament. Yet we affirm the sovereignty and election of God, consigning it to the (divine) logical plane, which means we don't connect it logically to anything other than the praise and glory of God. Like Calvin, we might mention it last so that it won't throw off the rest of our theology and ethics.

Happy Romans 9 Day!

7 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Predetermination is about organizational structures determining their mission.
The question for the individual is if the organization's mission is their mission. Are they a "mission fit"? The individual has a choice in the matter, which determines their "mission". So, it is not about what mission we choose, but that we choose. Choice is the human capacity to honor "a greater good". And these choices are not right or wrong, but just different.

I find it sad that there are so many (and I was included) that believe that God intervenes on a personal level and interacts in historical time. But, possibly Wim's theory is right, God could deal with us differently, as individuals and that is how we understand things so differently as well....:)

Garwood Anderson said...

Ken, one of the things I miss about being at Asbury is that I don't get to take Wesleyans through the horrors of Romans 9! To stare it down and ask what is really going on. It was one of my favorite classes, actually, to approach Rom 9 and to ask if, according to Jewish categories of election, Paul is making an argument with respect to individual soteriology. Not surprisingly, I think not. Now, when I talk about it, it is less and more interesting: the students are less scandalized by the passage, but we have a mix of Arminians and Calvinists, though with a majority who are neither.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

with due respect Garwood, election was the term the Jewish used to form their group identity and specialness, as God's chosen. It is not a historical fact, but a psychological one that became important to their understanding of themselves.
In a recent Nova special, it was acknowledged that a statue was found that signified that Ywh had a wife "Asheroth" (who was the Canaanite goddess)...therefore, the Jews were Canaanites, who escaped (?!) and created a story to help them understand themselves in new circustances and situations. Psychologically, we attempt to bring ourselves understanding through these endeavors of theological reflection. Theology is not literally true, it is only a way of understanding...not truth itself!!!
Therefore, election was a useful term for Paul in communicating a more "open-ended" understanding without undermining the purpose for the Jew as distinct from the Gentile...
As far as God's sovereign control over history, no, God is not active in the literal sense. There are many senseless things that transpire that could never possibly be from God..if you want to continue to believe.

Anonymous said...

This is why I think Augustine had it right in his first writings about predestination before his more "double" sounding language later on. In his first shot at it he was pretty clear that we have free will, yet God has quite determined everything that is to be what it is from eternity. The trick is that we cannot logically connect the dots without an appeal to mystery. So keep on working out your salvation with fear and trembling and don't worry about tomorrow (to conflate two passages).

James said...

Wow, a post on Romans 9 which doesn't even mention the Jewish people or the ongoing need for Jewish evangelism. Surely this isn't what's intended by Romans 9 day?

Ken Schenck said...

Thanks James, you're quite right and what you see above isn't all I said in class. I mentioned that Romans 9-11 is no more about individual predestination than 1-8 are about how to get saved, that all these things are about the question of how the Gentiles can be included. I mentioned that Romans 9 is basically saying, "Don't grumble about God accepting the Gentiles because He's God and can do whatever He wants."

But I teach people who are going to be ministers, and the above is more relevant to what they need to do with Scripture for people in the pew. It's also apropos the resurgence of a rigid and militant Calvinism in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry I missed Romans 7 day. :)